Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Fractured high court publicly reprimands Milwaukee attorney

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//July 15, 2016//

Fractured high court publicly reprimands Milwaukee attorney

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//July 15, 2016//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded a Milwaukee attorney, ending a disciplinary proceeding that spanned about six years.

The misconduct stems from a complaint filed in 2010 by the Office of Lawyer Regulation alleging that John Kenyatta Riley, a 1996 graduate of Marquette University Law School, violated multiple ethics rules while representing a fellow attorney in a disciplinary proceeding.

In 2006, Riley represented attorney Brian Polk, who was seeking reinstatement to the bar. Polk testified during a reinstatement proceeding that he did not engage in legal work while his law license was suspended.

The OLR, however, alleged in the 2010 complaint that Polk was in fact employed as an attorney during his suspension, and Riley knew about it. The OLR alleged Riley submitted false evidence and knew his client’s testimony was false.

The referee found merit to the allegations and recommended a public reprimand. Riley appealed the referee’s findings and the proposed sanctions, and asked the state Supreme Court to dismiss the charges.

The court publicly reprimanded Riley on Friday. Justice Rebecca Bradley did not participate.

While a majority of the justices on Friday agreed on the discipline imposed, they could not agree on the rationale for the order.

Chief Justice Pat Roggensack and Justices Michael Gableman and Annette Ziegler joined in Friday’s lead opinion, with Justice Shirley Abrahamson concurring with a separate writing and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley joining part of that concurrence.

In her concurring opinion, Abrahamson berated the court for taking so long to release the lead opinion, noting that oral arguments took place in October 2012 but the per curiam draft of the lead opinion was sent out 10 months after and Prosser circulated the draft of his dissent nearly three years after.

“I think (the case) wins the prize for taking longer to decide than any other OLR proceeding I can remember or find. It is a prime example of significant, unnecessary delays in completing a disciplinary matter. Delay appears to exist at every level of the disciplinary proceedings, but the final delay at this court in releasing the lead opinion is outrageous,” Abrahamson wrote.

Justice David Prosser was the lone dissent, noting that two other attorneys responsible for the situation were either not disciplined or inadequately disciplined and that he did not think Riley set out to lie to the referee in the disciplinary proceeding about important facts.

Prosser also wrote that the lead opinion did not sufficiently discuss the tension between the attorney-client relationship and an attorney’s obligation to the court.

“We ought to ask: Has the court provided sufficient guidance for the Wisconsin bar to avoid in the future the same pitfalls that the attorney faced in this case?” according to Prosser’s dissenting opinion.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests